User talk:Benea/archive10

Talkback
-MBK004 06:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have responded to your latest query. -MBK004 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll see what he has to say, but otherwise I think it's a pretty unlikely coincidence. Benea (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS Drake 1779
Many thanks for sorting those edits. Corneredmouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneredmouse (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

French Frigate Niemen (1808) and HMS Niemen (1809)
Hi Benea, shouldn't we merge these two articles under the French Frigate article, per usual practice? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not neccessarily. Two articles for notable careers is acceptable practice. If anything though the precedent would be the other way. with the longer and more notable service being in the RN. Benea (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Done. Neither career is notable, but the UK is less not notable. :-) Combining makes for a stronger article, with a picture even.Acad Ronin (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, both are notable, at least by our standards, but this is a case where one article will probably do to catch the most notable. Benea (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year, both of you! Just to mention that I've significantly altered the article on HMS Queen (1839) to include references to what were originally ordered as her sisterships. We could really do with an article started on the half-sister HMS Frederick William (1860), one of the few screw battleships for which no entry has been produced. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The same to you Rif! I'll see what I can do in the near future. Best, Benea (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

National varieties of English
So, why did you change "airplane" to "aeroplane" in this edit of Japanese repair ship Akashi? Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found out later that aircraft was preferred, and its a sensible compromise. I had initially assumed 'airplane' was a mispelling or a misinterpretation, the original article was rather idiomatic, and indeed from the user's later edits to the article, this seems to have been the case. Isn't learning things wonderful. Benea (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why in the world would you think it was a misspelling, and why would you still think that now? Are you that insulated that you've never heard of airplanes? Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think you had a bad holiday. Benea (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a rhetorical question. I just can't figure out any way that you could have thought that "airplanes" was a misspelling.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

James Colnett
Hey, nice work on the James Colnett page--and so fast. In researching I saw Colnett had an entry at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but couldn't access it. I thought my library subscribed, but apparently not. Looks like a great resource. Anyhow, thanks! Pfly (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, its a great resource though it certainly helps to be at the source. Its an interesting article now, and an enjoyable read! Keep up the good work! Benea (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Question
Almost two years ago, you participated in the deletion discussion of the Otis AFB F-94C Disappearance page here. I've finally gotten around to fixing it to something worth while, so I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at it here before I upload it to the main space. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS Canopus
Benea-- do you know why the RN chose this name? The dab page linked above states that the vessels were named after the star. This seems dubious, as the star is not visible in the UK, and the first Canopus was taken at the Battle of the Nile which took place at Aboukir Bay, which is adjacent to the ancient settlement of Canopus, Egypt. (And both town and star were likely named for Canopus, a mythological pilot of Menelaus' ship in the Trojan war, but I have not delved that far into it.) Regards,  Kablammo (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting point. Paine's book on warships attributes the naming of the second Canopus to the ancient town near the Nile, though its fairly obvious I think that the choice of name was influenced by having been carried by the ship of the line. There isn't an immediately obvious link between the names chosen for the Canopus class battleships, but they all reused names from large ships of the line, all third rates or larger, and all active during the Napoleonic Wars and would have been known to Nelson. The implication is therefore that the first Canopus also takes its name from the town, and this is extremely plausible. Most of the ships taken at the Nile were brought into the RN under their French names, the only other exception apart from Franklin/Canopus was Aquilon, which became Aboukir, a direct reference to the battle she was captured in. It was not uncommon to change the names of prizes to commemorate the actions they were taken in. For example one of the ships that escaped the Nile, Guillaume Tell, was captured off Malta two years later, and became HMS Malta. Naming RN ships after stars is less common, HMS Sirius is one example I can think of off the top of my head, though there may be more (there were also ships named HMS Star, and the name North Star in the navy dates from 1810, and Morning Star from 1672.) Ships like HMS Castor and HMS Pollux are more likely to have been named after the mythological characters than the stars though. In conclusion, being named after the star is not impossible but I think its unlikely. Similarly the name may commemorate the mythological figure (names doing so abounded in the navy of the period) but I would guess this is a added bonus, if it even occurred to the Admiralty at all, and was almost certainly not the main motivation in choosing the name. The first ship appears to be named after the town with the intention of commemorating the battle fought near it, and this is implied in a written source. The second was again named after the town and hence the battle, but primarily I suspect to perpetuate the name of the first. Benea (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your source is sufficient to negate the uncited statement on the dab page, so I will remove it.  Kablammo (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS Wolverine/Wolverene
Not sure how good your references are, but since you have an interest in this era, would you happen to know whether there were two ships, one named Wolverine and one named Wolverene, serving in 1805? Very unlikely I would think, but as someone has challenged a hook at DYK I thought you might be able to check. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was only one in 1805. The former HMS Wolverine, an experimental brig (or bark-rigged) sloop converted in 1798 out of what was originally a collier, was sunk in action in the North Atlantic on 21 March 1804. The new HMS Wolverine was a purpose-built brig sloop of the Cruizer class, built at Topsham in 1804-1805, which went on to serve in the RN until 1815. Both ships were named Wolverine, but spelling was always irregular during the 18th and early 19th century (even in official records) so the spelling variation Wolverene occurs sometimes, but does not indicate a different vessel. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1942
Would this list benifit from splitting by month now? Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest I wondered that as well. There's still only a small proportion of the total ships sunk that year on the list anyway, so it's almost certainly going to get a lot bigger. Might be better to split it sooner rather than later. Benea (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Caribbean
Just for the accuracy, which wreck of a Cornwallis is the one now in the coral reef park at Carlisle Bay (travelblog.org)? I didn't see anything that the SS Cornwallis was raised, so it must be a namesake. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure, there's plenty of evidence on the blogs that the Cornwallis they're talking about is the one that was sunk in the area by a U-boat, only thing is that ship was repaired and sunk again hundreds of miles away from the Caribbean. There's one source that says that it is a portion of the ship that can be dived on in the bay. Maybe a piece that broke off as a result of the torpedoing, or when she was raised, and is still down there. No other ship of that name was torpedoed during the war. Benea (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)
Hello, I am contacting you because you are a naval history contributor. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the undefined undefined template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding undefined undefined everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasp
Dear Benea Could you have a quick look at HMS Wasp and confirm the 1884 torpedo boat? Winfield doesn't list it, and a quick Google search doesn't reveal anything. Shem (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, she was apparently a 12-ton torpedo boat built by Thorneycroft at Chiswick in 1884 for service with the Australians. She was sold c. 1906, but Colledge makes the caveat that while those details were listed in Brassey's naval annual, the ship has not been traced. Lyon and Winfield have some further details on what is presumably this vessel described as a 'second class spar TB for Tasmania naval service.' Her dimensions were the same as the Defender class vessels used by the RN at the time, which makes them more or less the same as the dimensions in Colledge, making it likely these are the same ship. L&W have her as launched in late December 1883, rather than 1884, though there is a question mark over the exact date. According to them she was deleted from Tasmanian service c. 1900, and the hull put up for sale in 1917. An explanation for why this vessel is difficult to track may be that, according to L&W, the name Wasp was only used by Thorneycroft while building her, the Tasmanians never named her but used her yard number. Benea (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally this is almost certainly the TB 191 pictured. Though her fate still seems uncertain, the caption from the AWM has 'ARRIVED IN TASMANIA IN 1884 AND WAS SOLD TO SOUTH AUSTRALIA IN THE LATE 1880'S.', while our wikipedia article on the Colonial navies of Australia has 'In 1883, Tasmania purchased the second-class torpedo boat TB 191. Gillett (1977) refers to this vessel as TB 1 not TB 191. The ship arrived in Hobart on May 1, 1884 and remained in Tasmania until it was transferred to South Australia in 1905.' Benea (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh - talk about a comprehensive answer! I think it is fair to say that she was never actually HMS Wasp, and I'll adjust the ship index page accordingly.  Thanks.  Shem (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article at The Naval Historical Society of Australia bears out everything you've said. Thanks again. Shem (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is also borne out by Thornycrofts own records. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Speedy (1782)
I have undertaken to review the article HMS Speedy (1782) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or queries you may have during this period. ✽ Familiae Watt§   (TALK)  11:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have passed HMS Speedy and it is now listed as a Good Article. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  10:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I got it wrong - but if I am identified as an issue on a talk page - common courtesy would at least notify me as an interested party?. Anyways parsec has fixed the issue and I am in support of parallel tagging if it is ok with everybody - cheers SatuSuro 04:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

HMS London (1656)
Hi, Ben! Usual type of request - can you correct the title (and links) for the article on the London of 1656, which is currently incorrectly headed HMS London (1654) - the ship was not ordered until July 1654 and was launched in June 1656. Thanks. PS: I have corrected the articles on the Charles of 1668, London of 1670 and Saint Andrew of 1670, which for some unknown reason stated they were "Second rates" - whereas the three were all completed as First rates and remained so, except that the Charles was later renamed Saint George and subsequently reclassed as a Second Rate. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem Rif, I've moved it to HMS London (1656). I don't have Lavery's book in front of me but I suspect that this may be where the earlier date has come from. Colledge also has 1656 (though with a June launch date). As an unrelated aside, do you know Nicholas Rodger at all? Benea (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for prompt action Ben. Yes, I note that Brian Lavery has 1654 in his Ship of the Line Vol.1, but that is definitely an error. Sadly there are a few small errors in the tables at the back of that book (please bear in mind it was published in 1983), e.g. he omits the 74-gun Marlborough of 1767 from the list of Ramillies class Third Rates on p.177, but quotes the construction dates of Marlborough against the entry for the Magnificent. However, I stress that none of these minor errors detract from the overall accuracy of the work.

I don't really know Nicholas Rodger, although we have spoken over the phone at one time. His two recent books on the history of the Navy are certainly superb, and strongly to be recommended. Out of interest, my next book, First Rate, is now virtually complete and is now being advertised by amazon.co.uk although frankly I don't think the release date of July 2010 is going to be met. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Benea: Is it really necessary to list the London of 1656 as HMS London (1656)? I am aware that I came across a recommendation some time ago (was it in the Manual of Style? - I can't re-locate it) that all British warships should have the HMS prefix irrespective of date. Dubious in the case of dates earlier than the 1790s, it defies all sense and logic to apply it to a warship of the Commonwealth/Protectorate era, when there was no "His Majesty" extant, from the execution of Charles I (1649) to the Restoration in 1660. martinev (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mary Rose at FAC
Since you have been an active commentator, reviewer or editor of the article Mary Rose, I'd like to announce that it's been nominated for featured article status. The nomination can be found at Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1. I would very much appreciate your comments, suggestions for improvement or support of the nomination.

Peter Isotalo 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Trafalgar order of battle and casualties
Please see Talk:Trafalgar order of battle and casualties--Toddy1 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

New Star incident
I fully agree with your comments, and have removed the offending section from the article. If there is any further disruption over that section I'll be kicking backsides, administratively speaking. BTW, ever considered becoming an admin yourself? I'd be pleased to nominate you. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch, the page seems to have quietened down, so hopefully there'll be no more bother over it. I've occasionally thought about it, I've certainly no objection to being an admin if the community feels I could be of use in some way? Benea (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll start working on a nom in the next few days. In the meantime, take a look at WP:ARL and pages linked therefrom. Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ta muchly, no rush though, I'll probably be pretty busy for the next couple of weeks so it might be better to wait until after then. Benea (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ettiquette
Don't you think it would be a little courteus to discuss things before you take it upon yourself to change the title of a page? Especially when you see that I created it and I am actively working on it. That is rude. Christopher Billop is a unique historical figure especially in New York history almost always referred to as "Captain", nobody refers to him as "Royal Navy Officer". 7mike5000 (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The convention on wikipedia is not to use a specific rank as a disambiguating term. The obvious reason is that Billopp's (or Billop? I'm not sure if you've spelt it wrong above or in the article title?) service is not just limited to his time as captain. Have a look through Category:Royal Navy officers and Category:Royal Navy admirals for examples (William Bradley (Royal Navy officer), Basil Brooke (Royal Navy officer), Samuel Brown (Royal Navy officer), John Cooke (Royal Navy officer), Archibald Cochrane (Royal Navy officer), Christopher Cole (Royal Navy officer) are a very few examples of this convention in practice). I'm sorry if you thought it was rude, but remember WP:BOLD, and to WP:AGF. And to use Template:Inuse in future to avoid edit conflicts. Benea (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Certain historical figures are noted by their rank, he is one of them. "Captain" also differentiates him from his great-grandson also named Christopher Billopp, who is usually referred to by his rank in the loyalist militia "colonel". Billopp's claim to fame is for his activities in the colonies not in the Royal navy. I do see your point however. But it is still nice to explain beforehand.7mike5000 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lord George Paulet
and sorry for letting 'mer'canisms slip in. Thanks for the help filling in and improving the quality. W Nowicki (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all, happy to help! Good work on the articles. Benea (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of misleading categories
Ben, can you kindly arrange to remove the category pages "Category:First-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy", "Category:Second-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy", and "Category:Third-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy" as they were clearly put in be someone who did not understand the difference between "First Rate" and "First Class" and are highly misleading. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that issue seems to have been settled now, it's probably time to delete them. I've suggested they be tagged by their author as a self nom for speedy deletion, which will be quicker and easier than going through the CfD process. Benea (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Give Me A Chance
Could you give me a chance to explain to you why the articles should be merged into one called "list of wars 1900-1999" and then create "list of wars 2000-2099"? B-Machine (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

John Perkins (Jack Punch)
How do I change the disambiguation? Also, every source I've cited is accurate to the best of my knowledge but by all means check them yourself. Thank you for the feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneredmouse (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for that. Done the small edits. The bigger edits will take more time. Unfortunately this article pretty much is original thought because as far as I'm aware I'm the only person to try and serious research on this guy. Also, do you own/operate the age of Nelson website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneredmouse (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC) To be honest provided that the essential information is kept such as his achievements and the ships he commanded etc then I don't mind removing the opinions. Basically Perkins is a subject that I'm quite passionate about and I've written a number of articles and even a book about him. A number of publishers have been positive and keen about the book/articles but mentioned that they didn't believe he existed because he wasn't on wikipedia (a lot of the research being quite obscure and generally unavailable) so I taught myself a little about how to do things on here and put an article up. I know it's not perfect and that wikipedia is not a forum for original thought but I'm not that good with the internet and so would be happy for any help you could offer. I simply want people to be aware that people like Perkins and Paul Cuffe and Dumas existed. Black history is not simply about slavery. I'll rewrite the article on word and post it on my talk section if you wouldn't mind taking another look once I'm done. Hopefully second time lucky! I'll let you know when its up.

Better? John Perkins (Royal Navy Officer) --Corneredmouse (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Also, thanks for tidying up the Arab article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneredmouse (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing those edits. Out of curiosity, how would I go about estimating prize money? I know that's a huge question but are there any definitive lists out there that you know of that would give me some ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneredmouse (talk • contribs) 08:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben Asdale
Hi Benea, thank you for promptly improving the article Ben Asdale – I felt a bit guilty creating it then just leaving other editors to sort it out but I know little or nothing about the subject except it didn't belong where it was. Thanks and best wishes Andy F (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I just gave it a few fixes and tweaks. Looks in fairly good shape now. Best, Benea (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cherbourg Project
Thx a lot for a wonderful editing of this paper.

Hope you enjoyed the story.

Fttxguru (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

HMS Levant
Does HMS Levant need disambiguating? The one that Constitution captured I had linked as HMS Levant (1813). --Brad (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes absolutely. There was one other warship named Levant, while another was to have been renamed Levant, but never was. I'll fix this up now. Benea (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Nelson Touch
As you clearly have an interest in this sort of thing, I wonder if you might be kind enough to visit my user page and look at an article I am writing on this subject. Do you think it should be a stand alone article, or would it be better integrated into another? If so which? The Nelson touch is mentioned in the article about his life but I don't believe the context to be correct. If you have not already gathered, I am new to Wikipedia and this will be my first article, so any advice would be gratefully received.--Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. Is it acceptable to butt into peoples talk pages in this fashion? If not do excuse me.

The Nelson Touch 2
Thanks for your feedback and suggestions. I appreciate that the phrase 'the Nelson Touch' was also used to describe Nelson's leadership/motivational skills and indeed this is mentioned in the main article but felt it needed some elaboration. I toyed with the idea of editing the article but thought it would get too messy. I am loathed to dilute the idea by adding elements to different articles, as you suggest, because I feel the phrase is sufficiently well known to warrant its own section; whether that is within another article under a sub-heading or on its own, I'm not certain. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. I guess my initial reaction was to start an article that others like yourself could expand. I don't know that I have the confidence or depth of knowledge to write an entire article on my own (or the time for that matter!) Also, as a stand alone article, it could be linked to other entries where the phrase is used. With regards to the sexual connotations, this has only come to light since the Nelson Letters Project (2001?-2005) so it is comparatively recent thinking. I don't have any books by Andrew Lambert, am I missing something?!--Ykraps (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have expanded the article to include a bit about Nelson's leadership skills if you would like to take another look.--Ykraps (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have let this lie so long. I've given it a look over, it looks pretty good. There are a few minor concerns I have over the style and tone, try for example to avoid making definitive statements over subjective interpretations, but this is not a majorr problem. The scope still interests me, as to whether its a study of Nelson's tactics, the history of the term, etc. Some more work on defining this could be good. I think you asked me about Lambert's book? 'Nelson : Britannia's god of war '. It's a pretty thorough look at the historiography of Nelson, and would make a good addition I think to talking about the myth that's grown up around Nelson, his tactics, his personality, etc. Benea (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me, I appreciate you are probably busy. I have moved the article to User:Ykraps/The Nelson Touch and posted a request for feedback where I was ticked off for referring to 'Nelson's genius' :) I will have a go at rewording some of the more subjective statements but starting every sentence with 'it has been suggested' or 'some people may say' tends to disrupt the flow so I find this quite difficult. I will look out for Andrew Lambert's book the next time I'm in Waterstones. In the meantime however any comments or suggestions would be gratefully received.--Ykraps (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are missing something, Ykraps. Andrew's books on The Last Sailing Battlefleet: Maintaining Naval Mastery 1815-1850 (Conway, 1991. ISBN 0-85177-591-8) and Battleships in Transition: The Creation of the Steam Battlefleet 1815-1860 (Conway, 1984. ISBN 0-85177-315-X) are vital to understanding the post-Napoleonic war developments. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OOP5
I thought I checked the dates but patently not, Thanks for catching my error Victuallers (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sir Thomas Troubridge, 3rd Baronet
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ernest Troubridge
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Andrei Alexandrovich Popov
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on William Peere Williams-Freeman
I occasionally dump articles from the old DNB into Wikipedia, on the grounds that a 120-year-old well-written article is better than no article at all, and in the hope that other editors with other skills will improve them. It is rare that I see such spectacular and immediate improvement as the work you did on William Peere Williams-Freeman. Thanks.

I listed him as an "admiral of the fleet," but is quite clear that he never actually served in this capacity (or in fact an any capacity after 1782, when he was still a post-captain.) Is there a convention for describing a "yellow admiral" in Wikipedia articles?

By chance, would it be possible for you to add references for the new information that was not part of the original DNB article? I have no clue as to where you got all of this so quickly.

If you enjoy this kind of work, please take a look at Christopher Nesham.

Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, happy to help. As to the ranks you are correct to list him as an admiral of the fleet. Rank and service were not the closely connected things they are today. While an officer could be promoted through the ranks it did not guarantee him an assignment, and this went for lieutenants, commanders and post captains as well as those of flag rank. Nelson for example spent a considerable period without a posting between the end of the American War of Independence and the start of the French Revolutionary Wars. Had the latter conflict not begun he too might one day have reached flag rank and maybe died an admiral of the fleet having seen no further service. These officers were still kept on the lists of seniority and were still eligible for commands as and when they came up. An officer who had seen no active service since he was a post captain could potentially be given a command many years later as a vice-admiral or admiral (Fleetwood Pellew springs to mind as one example). Or they might never receive another command, but they would still retain their rank, and indeed expect and receive further promotions. We don't have an especial way of classing these officers as distinct from those who did receive commands, I think its enough to say that they received their promotions but did not receive any appointments before their deaths. I've put a cite in to the updated online ODNB entry, the source of a few facts which I fleshed the article out with. I'll take a look at Nesham, there are a few sources that might cover more of his life. Best, Benea (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy
The article deals with a list of active ships of the Royal navy, not just specifically commissioned ships. The list also clearly defines commissioned and non-commissioned ships any way. Recon.Army (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read the talk page you'll see that we've been here before and there are good reasons why this distinction has been retained. Active is a subjective term and the list has historically been used to contain only the commissioned ships (Ambush is a very long stretch since she has yet to even be launched). There used to be a section on ships handed over but not yet commissioned, which I've readded as a reasonable compromise, and explained on the talkpage.


 * Incidentally you've been making some edits to pages such as expanding the image box size beyond 300px, trying to force the size of thumbnails, using large amounts of whitespace and adding large list sections to articles. These are generally deprecated for a number of reasons. And the images you've been uploading appear to not be permissible on wikipedia, and may soon be deleted. Benea (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Piracy


Hello, You are invited to join WikiProject Piracy! We are an established project that has recently become inactive and needs to overhaul its activities. The focus of this WikiProject considerably covers a large historical period and specific topics, so please feel free to contribute within your own area of interest. If you would like to take a look at the project, please click the link above. If you find you would be interested in joining the project, then feel free to sign up here.

 Metabaronic (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

HMS Shannon (1855)
Thanks for the edits and additional info. My copies of Lyon and College are in storage so I started this stub as pretty barebones. Thanks for moving it along! Letterofmarque (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, just did some minor tweaks. Keep up the good work! Benea (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey
I'm trying to reformat the list of wars 1500-1799 article. I'm doing the 1700-1799 section. Somehow the stuff I was doing ended up on the bottom of page. What the hell happened? B-Machine (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like you forgot to close the table coding. Adding this |} at the end of the code will close it and allow it to display properly. As long as you remember to do that, you can add in the other wars and it will still display correctly. Benea (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I forgot that. Thanks. By the way, please tell the other editors to not go that article yet. I want to finish the section first. B-Machine (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can put the In use template on the page, which will notify editors that the page is being worked on and will reduce edit conflicts. Benea (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about how long the list of wars 1500-1799 article is. Should it be split into three parts (1500-1599, 1600-1699, and 1700-1799)? B-Machine (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a grey area, it doesn't seem drastically long in itself, but I wouldn't be opposed to a split. Benea (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "first rate" and similar
Dear Benea, please come and participate in the discussion at Talk:First-rate. Shem (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

British or English?
Hi Benea,

I suspect that nelson is one of your watched pages too so you may have already seen the recent edits. I have never considered it before, but I think 78.147.142.202 may have a point. Although Nelson was certainly English, he was a flag officer in the RN which is a British institution. Any thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. I tend to avoid assigning nationality when writing articles about naval officers of the period, with the format 'xxx was an officer of the Royal Navy', and later including the birthplace, if known, in the opening section dealing with the subject's early life. English and British are both technically correct, it may be better to avoid any emphasis on one over the other, by removing this from the lead and saving the statement that he was born in England for later. Benea (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's my feeling too. Although, as you say, both are technically correct; it does lend the sentence a certain ambiguity. If you look at the article on John Elliot, you will see he is reffered to as a Scottish officer which to my mind infers that the navy was Scottish.


 * I believe at one time there was a Royal Navy officer who was Russian! You can see how this might cause a headache.--Ykraps (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I quite agree. I'm certainly not averse to removing it from the article, especially if it leads to any more serious disputes. Nationality is often ridiculously contested on wikipedia, I find it a good rule of thumb to avoid making definite claims, even for something like 'British' versus 'English'. Benea (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Provided you remember that pre-1707 it was definitely "English" rather than "British". And of course throughout the 18th and most of the 19th century, the 'nationality' reference in contemporary sources was almost always to 'English' even where they unquestionably meant British. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Rif, thanks for your input. Although I have my own ideas, my overriding concern is that of continuity. Nelson is referred to as an English Admiral but Charles Tyler is referred to as a British one, even though he is English too. Whatever the style, I would like to see it used throughout. Or am I just being pedantic? Please feel free to offer an opinion on that.--Ykraps (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As an accomplished pedant myself (it helps when writing lengthy reference books), I would never criticise the art-form. However, in this case it is your desire for consistency which I must comment on. The Georgian era (and those preceding it) was replete with inconsistencies, and seeking accuracy (to the extent of being a pedant!) means trying to understand those inconsistencies. Some are obvious, e.g. no-one bothered abour "accurate" spelling in this period, because there was no such thing as "right" or "wrong" spelling - so trying to argue whether a name is spelt correctly or incorrectly is totally pointless.
 * The trouble with "British" v "English" is that the English (unlike the Scottish, Welsh and Irish) usually didn't remember that there is a difference between the two terms; of course, that situation hasn't changed to this day! But technically, the Royal Navy was English until 6 March 1707 (there was a minute Scottish Navy in existence until then) on which day "Great Britain" legally came into existence, and was thereafter British. So the ships should be described in those terms.
 * As to individual people, it was of course correct to say that they were both British subjects and at the same time of either English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish nationality (one could add Cornish, as most indigenous inhabitants of Cornwall considered themselves to be of Cornish rather than English nationality); of course this doesn't take account of the several thousands of people serving in the Royal Navy who were not of any of these nationalities, but hailed from overseas.
 * Thus someone such as Nelson or Tyler could technically be described as both British and English. However, when referring to either of them as Admiral (or any other rank) means you are using their title in the Royal Navy, and if you wish to be consistent then I suggest that for this reason you should identify the title in the same way as for ships, i.e. as "English" up to 7 March 1707 and "British thereafter.
 * Now let me be really a pedant and point out that Nelson was never an Admiral, either a British one or an English one! He was, of course, a Vice-Admiral. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure whether that's a yes or a no. :) In any event I don't know that I would have been brave enough to revert the IP User's edits (not least because I think he/she may be right). I don't think the Act of Union complicates matters, as you say, before that date the navy was English and after it was British. Failing that, Benea's suggestion of not mentioning the nationality and rank in the same sentence seems acceptable. For Example: Sir Henry Blackwood KCB etc. was a Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy. Then mention the fact that he was Irish later on.


 * At the risk of opening another can of worms; I'm not sure I concur with regards to ships. The 'nationality' of a ship depended on which navy it was in at the time and as some ships swapped sides more than once I find it difficult to see how you can assign 'nationalities' (if that makes sense). For example was Minerve a French frigate or a British one. The answer is of course that she was both (twice!). I would be inclined to describe her as a French built frigate that served in both the French and Royal Navies and elaborate on this later in the article.
 * Finally, I am English and British, and understand the difference perfectly. My nationality is British, it says so on my passport! Although it also describes me as a citizen and I would argue that I was a subject (pedantic?). Yours (in good humour)--Ykraps (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC):)


 * My solution to these problems can be seen at articles like HMS Concorde (1783) (HMS Concorde was a 32-gun fifth rate frigate of the Royal Navy. She had previously served in the French Navy under the name Concorde.) This can be amended of course to something like 'she had previously served in the French Navy as the 36-gun Concorde, etc. Details on changes of armaments, etc can be covered in the 'construction' or 'design' section of the article. My preferred approach when dealing with people, is to use something like 'Savage Mostyn (c.1713 – 16 September 1757) was an officer of the Royal Navy who saw service...' and avoid using the nationality at any stage, unless it is immediately relevant. You may get some people who insist on adding 'British' to Royal Navy, insisting that it is too Eurocentric or British biased without. Sometimes this leads to plain inaccuracies, as for officers or ships prior to 1707, etc, and this should of course be challenged. Otherwise, I rarely get involved as some people are fully prepared to be insistent and even edit war over these little details. Benea (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that describing the Minerve as a French built frigate that served in both the French and Royal Navies is perfectly justified (for the pedants like us, I suggest you add the words "at different times"). I am perfectly happy that the adjective of national identity can be helpfully omitted in most contexts when describing a Royal Navy officer.
 * As regards your passport, it is not true to say it describes you as a citizen (except in the notes on pp.2 and 3). Legally, the status is "subject of the United Kingdom" (but a "citizen of the European Community); some of us have been campaigning for a long while to get the word "citizen" substituted for "subject". But this is probably not a topic for a discussion on sailing warships. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since 1948 British subject has had a very restricted meaning, and if you're English as well you are most unlikely to be one! David Underdown (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well according to that; as I was born in England between 1949 and 1982, I am a British subject and citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies! I told you I would argue it! :)--Ykraps (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

British English or US English
I made a mistake on the DYK nomination page by mis-spelling Artefact. I corrected it but in the meantime you have corrected the article. I would prefer artefact if that is ok with you? (I accept there may have been the two forms used in the article as I kept getting mixed up myself). As the article is about a British artefact I would prefer the British spelling.--Senra (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes and this is in keeping with WP:ENGVAR, ie a British English subject (a British archaeological discovery) uses British English spelling ('artefact' over 'artifact'). I was slightly surprised to see the American spelling, hence I corrected the article to use the British spelling. Benea (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * found the issue - it was not me - it was MC10 on 18:10 28 June 2010 - I thought I had been more careful than that --Senra (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * see my version here --Senra (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to see it is settled, I'll edit the DYK nomination, if that hasn't happened already.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was my mistake; I had presumed that it was a misspelling. My apologies. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  17:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, its an easy and common mistake. No harm done. Benea (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
How do I nominate an article for a name change? B-Machine (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Requested moves is what you want. The instructions there are pretty complete, just list the article there and the request can be considered. Which article was it that you wanted to rename? Best, Benea (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking 2010 Kingston unrest should be renamed 2010 Kingston conflict. It kind of makes it sound like this event was a riot. It wasn't. It was an armed conflict between the Jamaican military and the Shower Posse, a Jamaican drug cartel. B-Machine (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Concorde (1783)
-- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Masterman Hardy
Hello again, I dropped in here to get some some information on Thomas Hardy and was disappointed to find that there wasn't any (hardly). I thought this was a bit poor for someone so notable (I would say that living in Dorset) so I have added some. It is however lacking in references and the ones I have added are all from the same source and I know how Wikipedia hates that. I am quite prepared to come back to the article at a later date but I am currently busy with other things. I am concerned that some or all of this work will be deleted. Is there a way of tagging it to prevent this?

Also if you or any of your colleagues want to have a crack at dividing it into sections, adding links, citations etc. they are more than welcome! Regards--Ykraps (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, its often funny how some of the most famous naval commanders have so little information. This is partly because short articles were written early in wikipedia's history, and the articles have developed slowly and organically from there. Jervis' article is another example that springs to mind. The article seems in good shape, I'll keep an eye on it for now, but I don't think there's any danger in the edits being removed. I'll give it a copyedit soon, and maybe add some more references. Best, Benea (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I saw Jervis needed work when I linked the Hardy article to it. May be that will go on my list too. By the way, I see now that your interest is ships. I think I had it in my head that this was one of your projects because we had a discussion about Nelson a while back. Thanks for having a look at it anyway. Do you know what project it would be under?
 * On the subject of ships however, the article on Minerve (later HMS Minerve) states that she was a 40 gun frigate. All the info I have suggests she was a 38. Is someone's data incorrect or was her armament changed? I know this happened a lot, particularly when it became fashionable to mount carronades and various captains would have different ideas about size, type and number etc. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I like what you've done with the page, it's much easier to read now. Do you think it's worth more than its stub status now?--Ykraps (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's definitely more than a stub. Probably start class, but it shouldn't take much work to bring it up to higher ratings. As to Minerve, books like Colledge and Winfield agree on a rating of 38. This generally excludes carronades, and other specialised armament that the commander might have added themselves, and uses the official admiralty rating. Authors like James, et al, usually went to great lengths to track and account for the minute details of ships' armaments when describing actions and battles, and it is probably from there that the descriptions of these ships as carrying a few guns more than the official records stated come from, as they use the number of guns carried in that action, including those normally excluded from the official rating. Benea (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am still unsure as to whether I should alter the information or let it stand. The Hardy article mentions the Minerve as a 38 but links to an article that says it was a 40 and although some will assume her armament changed, others will see it as a continuity error. I thought the answer might be to refer to ships by their rating but this isn't foolproof either as the rating system changed after 1810 (as I am sure you know). As you are a member of this project I will leave it to you to decide.
 * Do you want me to put the Hardy article up for peer review?--Ykraps (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Like the majority of the French 18-pounder frigates which the Royal Navy captured and incorporated into the RN, the Minerve was rated as a 40-gun frigate in the French Navy but was rated as 38 guns once established in the British Navy; she remained established as a 38-gun ship throughout her British service. It is certainly true that she carried more than this in British service including her carronades - she actually had 28 x 18pdrs on the upper deck, with 8 x 9pdrs and 6 x 32pdr carronades on the quarterdeck, and 2 x 9pdrs and 2 x 32pdr carronades on the forecastle; a fairly standard armament at this date.
 * It was actually in February 1817 that the rating system changed, and from that time all carronades were included in the established number of guns (so if the Minerve had lasted until 1817, she would have been rerated as 46 guns, as in fact happened with most of the surviving ex-French frigates in the RN at that date). Until that date, carronades only "counted" if they were in place of long guns, in this particular case this did not apply. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again Rif. Thanks for the info, which seems comprehensive. I know that some 'boats' changed all their long guns for carronades and often wondered whether they were rated as 'no guns'! Now I know the answer!--Ykraps (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when the carronades replaced "long" guns (e.g. on the upper deck of a sloop or post ship, thus providing its main battery), such carronades were counted. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I meant too :). Incidentally, when I was talking about ratings, I was referring to 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. I understood that this system changed in 1810. Thus a '74' such as the Triumph was re-rated from a 3rd rate to a 4th rate after this date. Am I not correct in my thinking?--Ykraps (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was definitely February 1817 when the restructuring of the rates took place. The recommendation from the Board of Admiralty to the Prince Regent was dated 25 November 1816, but the Order in Council establishing the new ratings was issued in February 1817.
 * Of course, individual ships were sometimes re-rated at times outside the general changes, when there was a wholesale change in that particular vessel's armament. I have to say that this did not happen to the Triumph, which remained rated at 74 guns. You do need to distinguish between the established armament of a vessel (which rarely altered) and the actual guns carried, which might happen quite frequently for a variety of reasons; guns might be lost overboard during a storm, or "burst" in service and thus useless, or jettisoned to speed the ship during a chase, or indeed removed down into the hold in order to use the ship (temporarily) as a troop transport. Also some of the guns were removed from a ship during peacetime service, to reduce the stress on the ship's structure, which is why there was actually a distinction between the wartime complement of guns (and men) and the lower peacetime complement - the figure normally quoted for any vessel is the highest (wartimne) establishment). There is no point in trying to list every time that guns were removed from or added to a ship, unless that change was a permament change in its established number of guns. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I need to do a bit more reading. Truth be told, I wasn't sure about Triumph but it was the only '74' I could think of, off the top of my head, that was around in 1810.--Ykraps (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I modestly recommend the 1793-1817 volume of my own British Warships in the Age of Sail series, which should explain most points?
 * There was a further major change in the rating system in 1856. From that date, the First Rate comprised all Ships carrying 110 guns and upwards, or the complement of which consisted of 1,000 men or more; the Second Rate included one of HM's royal yachts, and otherwise comprised all ships carrying under 110 guns but more than 80 guns, or the complements of which were under 1,000 but not less than 800 men; the Third Rate included all the rest of HM's royal yachts and "all such vessels as may bear the flag of pendant of any Admiral Superintendent or Captain Superintendent of one of HM's Dockyards", and otherwise comprised all ships carrying at most 80 guns but not less than 60 guns, or the complements of which were under 800 but not less than 600 men; the Fourth Rate comprised all frigate-built ships of which the complement was not more than 600 and not less than 410 men; the Fifth Rate comprised all ships of which the complement was not more than 400 and not less than 300 men; the Sixth Rate consisted all all other ships bearing a Captain. Of unrated vessels, the category of sloops comprised all vessels commanded by Commanders; next followed all other ships commanded by Lieutenants, and having complements of not less than 60 men; finally were "smaller vessels, not classed as above, with such smaller complements as the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty may from time to time direct".
 * Perhaps someone (Ben??) might like to add these 1856 system changes to the article on the Rating system of the Royal Navy? Rif Winfield (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, now I am truly humbled. I see you are using your 'real' name. There is an editor called Barret Bonden but I didn't think he was Jack Aubrey's coxswain. Maybe I should check that out too! Your book looks very interesting and I will certainly look out for it! Are you allowed to refer to your own books while editing or does that constitute original research? :)--Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I try not to refer to my own books when editing (Benea and others have been very helpful by putting in references to my books). For many items however it is difficult because the only published source for that particular material is my own books; either that or I'd have to quote the Admiralty and other Public records documents that I've used which are by definition unpublished. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Naturally I use my real name - that's real rather than 'real', please, I'm not sure why you used the apostrophe. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Rif, no offence meant but not all authors use their real name when writing so I didn't know if it was your real name or not hence the quotation marks. Yours --Ykraps (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Submarine Crest Images
Thanks for updating the one you did.. If you could see your way to updating the others in a simmilar manner..

The reason for the update to the 'standard' template is so that they don't get flagged up by a WP:DBR report that's being used to find media that genuinely doesn't have FUR's (as opposed to merely un-templated ones).

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, Once updated the Standard-Rationale can be removed, but you already knew that :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Empire Spearhead / Ormonde
Hi, could you expand the article to show that Empire Spearhead was renamed Ormonde and give the date if possible. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

British Warships in the Age of Sail (book series)
Hi, Ben. Might I ask a favour, provided you think it is justified? Do you think you could insert an article on the book series (the publication details of all three existing volumes, ISBNs, etc, are on all on my userpage) and link it to the Category of Naval books in the same way as exists for The Sail and Steam Navy List? I hope this might help people in identifying the series as source material; it may also help them to realise that it is a series, as I have quite often people quoting the title without any dates following it, which sometimes makes it hard to identify to which volume they are referring. For your information, a fourth volume in the series is planned, covering the 1817-1863 period, but it will be some time before I can get around to finishing it, due to other commitments (my latest book, First Rate, comes out around September from Seaforth Publishing - see details on their website) Rif Winfield (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, I don't think there would be any concern over the notability of the series, and it would fit well alongside the academic texts we already have articles on. I'll have a look at working something brief up over the next few days. Benea (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. If you have any questions, email me on sailing.navy@btinternet.com; but for obvious reasons I would rather leave the wording entirely up to you. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Terrible (1747)
Wow! Excellent job on HMS Terrible (1747). I can't believe you did all that in a half-hour! Mingusboodle (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto HMS Vengeance (1758). You're rocking these articles! Mingusboodle (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, its no problem at all! You've probably noticed how confusing it can get with different ships having the same or similar names. I have a few sources to hand that are good for this period, so just worked them in. I liked the little anecdote about Death's privateer ship with her Lieutenant Devil and Ghost surgeon! Keep up the great work! Best, Benea (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Msa1701 and his socks
I've noticed that you've done the most work in combating Msa1701 at WP:SPI recently. I have come across a brand-new account (created after his last sock was blocked) editing RMS Queen Elizabeth. This "new" editor: was attempting to disguise his apparent knowledge of our procedures by removing most of the formatting of his first edits to the page to look like a newbie while retaining perfect referencing. This is not an obvious duck yet, but could definitely use some close shadowing. -MBK004 05:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd clocked him. I'll keep an eye and see if the pattern becomes unmistakable, as his socks often do. Benea (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I Need Your Help
Some stupid person using an IP address vandalized the list of wars 1800-1899 article. I don't know how I can undo all the edits. Can you help? B-Machine (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure if it is vandalism, so I'm hesitant to revert it. They have inserted Saxony as part of the Confederation of the Rhine, which appears to be correct, and placed Sicily after Sardinia. I can understand your frustration, but this may be a good faith, or even useful edit. Please try to avoid calling editors stupid, or other names, as this has got you into trouble before. Benea (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Young (1761–1847)
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Young (1751–1821)
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette
Hi Benea,

I am acutely aware that I have taken up large amounts of your talk page, discussing issues with editors other than yourself, and wondered whether that was acceptable behaviour or whether the conversation should have been moved elsewhere. I apologise for any faux pas committed.--Ykraps (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I share the responsibility for this, Ben. Should you wish to transfer the exchange to my talk page, please feel free to do so. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all guys, you're welcome to post here, and it's an enlightening discussion to follow. Please continue at your leisure. Benea (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Benea. I would prefer to keep the same conversation in the same place, so I will continue posting replies here if that's ok. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Black Prince (1816)
Hi, Ben, Something has gone astray with the infobox formatting of this page, which seemed to have happened when I was correcting the ship's dimensions. I cannot make out the cause of the error, which perhaps you can correct for me. Thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Rif, just a minor template problem. I've fixed the formatting and it should render fine now. Benea (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Ben. One small issue that I'd like to draw to your attention is the use in Wiki articles of design dimensions (as opposed to actual or as-built dimensions) for wooden warships, particularly where the article writer has drawn data from The Ship of the Line (Volume 1, Appendices). I'm not suggesting you are the articles' writer, or asking you to help fix the problem (I will try to do this over time), but I'd like you to be aware of the problem. Brian Lavery's practice in this book was - where a "class" consisted of more than one ship built to a common design, to quote the designed dimensions and (burthen) tonnage for the class, and then to tabulate delow the dates and as-built tonnage of the individual vessels within that class. This was of course perfectly reasonable, but the problem arises in Wikipedia is that the person extracting the data has taken the design dimensions and the as-built tonnage for the databoxes. Clearly the two do not correspond. You will be aware that the burthen tonnage is a calculated measurement of a ship's volume, which (for the vast majority of the sailing era) was arrived at by using the formula "burthen (tons) = keel length (feet) x breadth (feet) x ½ breadth (feet), divided by 94". For any wooden ship, there was always a difference (albeit usually just a few inches) between the designed dimensions and the "as-built" dimensions, which were those actually measured following launch. This is why in my British Warships in the Age of Sail series I have recorded each vessel's as-built details as well as the design details for that class. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Amphion badge.jpg
Added FUR based on the rationale - Apparently unsourced, so asking if you know of a possible source for this.

Adding the badges for other two submarines in the same class, also appreciated if they have articles :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, there is a slightly different and slightly better version on the barrow website, but I don't know where this one has come from. You may want to ask the uploader. Which other submarines do you mean? I think all the Amphion class submarines have articles. Benea (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the other subs have articles, but not crest images... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nelson
I moved as a non-contoversial housekeeping request without, I will concede, going deeply into it. The text is, after all, still intact. If it should be moved back, although I do not wholly see the rationale, I have no problem with doing so. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Speedy
I'm working on a more compact infobox in my sandbox. Currently awaiting a couple of flag issues to be resolved before it can go live. Feel free to tweak it if you think it needs improvement. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mj, but I'd rather you didn't use that style of infobox on the article. Warship articles so far use a different approach, which I'd like to keep to here. Benea (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I wasn't about to steam in and add it before proposing it on the talk page in any case. I've tweaked the ship length parameter in the article though. Just one slight problem, the design of the White Ensign changed as of 1 January 1801, should the second British section display both ensigns? Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was using the later White Ensign in any case (now corrected). How many other RN ships in service pre-1801 have the wrong flag shown? Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Common practice has been to display the last ensign the ship flew in that period of her career, so the post-1801 flag should be displayed there. As to your second question, very few I should think. Benea (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Take another look in my sandbox. Would that work to show the change of flag? Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm not keen on putting in a new section just for the change of ensign, and its not in keeping with common usage on all our other articles for ships that served both before and after 1801. I also have deliberately not included the details on 'commissioning' and 'decommissioning', as in the navy of this period the commission referred to individual commissions to commanders and officers of the ships, and ships were not commissioned and decommissioned as in modern navies. Benea (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Monarch (1747)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
A big thank you for your corrections on my work... much appreciated and big thanks to all your other work. Nomination for Barnstar hope you don't mind. I am currently hoping to get the casualties figures and disease sorted out on Battle of Cartegena De Inias (1741). They are by far heavily exaggerated. Bruich (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2010 (GMT)


 * No problem, just made a few links and a little clean up where it seemed helpful. Best, Benea (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tirpitz the Pig
Thank you for Tirpitz (pig). A story that I did not know. It made my evening. WhaleyTim (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just a little oddity that tickled me to take a (slight) diversion from warships and naval battles. Glad to see Tirpitz is still entertaining people, shame about his fate though! People were obviously much less sentimental back then. Thanks for your appreciation, best, Benea (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Savage Mostyn
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Martin (Royal Navy officer)
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Cap-Français
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Freedom_of_the_City_gold_box_admiral_jervis.jpg
Freedom_of_the_City_gold_box_admiral_jervis.jpg Hi there. I thought these images were under crown copyright. I've had a look at the NMM site and it seems somewhat confusing. I'm happy for it to be deleted if I wasn't right though as I would not want to break any laws. If I am right, would it be possible for you to update that file's page appropriately so it doesn't get flagged for deletion in the future as I don't know how to do that. Thanks for pointing it out. All the best Corneredmouse (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied on commons Corneredmouse. I hope this helps. Benea (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File:St vincent jug.jpg

File:Freedom of the City gold box admiral jervis.jpg

File:Admiral of the fleet Jervis baton.jpg

File:Medal commemorating John Jervis Earl St Vincent.jpg

File:Presentation sword given to jervis.jpg

I think you're right. I didn't realise. I think I've only used them in the Jervis article. It's a shame because they really highlight the point. As far as I know there are only 5. Should I nominate them for deletion? And then once I do, should I remove the reference from the wiki article? Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, before these are deleted I might to the NMM for their approval to use these images. I've worked with a few of the curators their before and they've always been really reasonable and really good. Particularly with copyright and usage requests. I'll see what I can do. Corneredmouse (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, the image policies are often very confusing to established users, as well as new ones. I'd probably leave a note explaining that you agree with the deletions. There doesn't seem to be an option for tagging them yourself for quick deletion, as exists on wikipedia, so that's probably the best you can do. The alternative may be to tag them as speedy for copyright violations, which should settle it more quickly. I think if you tag them as and put your reasoning in, that should do it. In the meantime I'd remove all these images from the Jervis article. It's a definite shame, but the only way round it would be if you were able to somehow access the items and photograph them yourself, something museums are very reluctant to allow. Benea (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be careful about that if I were you (contacting the nmm). Image usage like this is a hotly contested topic currently. There was recently an issue where a legal case was brought against a user for downloading images from the National Portrait Gallery website and uploading them here. The legal interpretation of these images is not especially clear, as the US works on a much looser interpretation than the British system, and British courts may well find differently. And as a British resident you would be subject to the more restrictive British laws. Benea (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged all the photos and removed them from the article. I might add them to the external links sections as direct links to the NMM site. That's probably more appropriate. Thanks again for pointing that out. I will also try and find time to double check the duplicate photos and replace them with the original uploads.


 * I have now removed the duplicate pictures and copyright pictures from the Jervis article. They now just need to be deleted on commons but I can't seem to do that. I think we have requested that the copyright stuff be deleted. The duplicates are:
 * File:Howe's relief of gibraltar.jpg
 * File:Jervis 1809.jpg
 * File:Capture of fort louis martinique 1794.jpg
 * File:Surrender of San Nicolas.jpg
 * If you want to put in a request for their deletion. Hopefully that clears up all the commons problems. Again, thanks for bringing it all to my attention.
 * On another note, I've built a simple table to show line of battle orders etc. I've put it up on Battle of the Saintes. Would you mind taking a look and see if it's the sort of thing that is compatible with wiki. It's just I found the old lists a little patchy and hard to read.


 * Thanks Corneredmouse (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I've tagged the images as duplicates, and they should soon be deleted. You might want to tag the other images you've uploaded (eg. File:Earl st vincent in old age.jpg, etc) with the templates with  . The new table looks good, a lot clearer than the previous system. I've tweaked it a little to match some of our featured lists on naval orders of battle, e.g. Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile. Benea (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tables
Wow. That looks much better. I'm messing around with Battle of Cape St. Vincent order of battle right now and will apply your template to it. Thanks for taking a look Corneredmouse (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Pye
Congratulations on your excellent article on Thomas Pye. I have been working to ensure there is a complete set of articles on Commanders-in-Chief, Portsmouth and I was just about to embark on Pye. Great work! Dormskirk (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I saw you had been working through and starting new articles/reworking some existing stubs. Coincidentally I had just finished a fairly lengthy article on Robert Roddam, so I thought I'd knock off Pye as well to complete the set. An interesting character despite his fairly obvious lack of talent, and somewhat Nelsonic approach to other people's wives! Good work on the list! Benea (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

John Jervis
Wow. I didn't know I'd made so many silly spelling mistakes. Thanks for clearing them all up. All the best, Corneredmouse (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, just doing a little cleaning up. Bound to happen on an article that size! Best, Benea (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting the Earl of Portsmouth. That was a silly mistake and I'm glad you picked it up. Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Roddam
Courcelles 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Greenwich (1747)
Courcelles 18:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Pye
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony James Pye Molloy
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Job
Good job on the clean up for HMCS St. Thomas (K488) :), as well the creation of the article U-877 Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Best, Benea (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for James Young (1762–1833)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Bremse
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

James Young (1762–1833)
Hi sorry in case you didn't see, is The European Magazine actually The Edinburgh Magazine? Green Cardamom (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for drawing my attention to that. No, the two are separate publications, though I had forgotten to include it when listing the references. A slip of the mind. Best, Benea (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Salisbury (1746)
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom
Hi. I've nominated John Bastard (Royal Navy officer), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Strange Passerby (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Strange Passerby (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox source
Could you provide a source for the information in the infobox you added here? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can find details on the Circe class submarines here, but please be aware of recent discussions on cites in infoboxes here. Benea (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to fix the cite in infoboxes issue. I am thinking about running that submarine article through GA/A-class review in the future; any suggestions and recommendations are welcome (but please make them on article's or my talk). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Chatham (1812)
 — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Aeolus (1801)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Benea, there is a bit of a question here. The article on Aeolus has her capturing Nautilus on 18 July. The article on Nautilus has her being captured on 6 July. If she was captured on 6 July, that was the first naval engagement of the war. However, if she was captured on 18 July, then the American capture of HMS Whiting on 8 July was the first engagement. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 6 July, as it appears in Michael Phillips, is obviously a mistake. Dates for the capture jump around from 15th to 17th, but 16th is the actual date, as confirmed by Crane's own report of his capture. There had been naval encounters prior to this, the pursuit of Belvidera for example predates both Whiting and Nautilus. You'll notice that the wording is 'the first ship either side lost during the war', the Whiting incident was ruled invalid, and she was not lost to the British. The first British ship considered captured by the Americans is Alert by Essex on 13 August. Benea (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Plans for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson?
Hi Benea, I was wondering what your plans were for the Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson article? Have you got any plans for an FAC anytime soon? If not, I was considering putting it up soon. I can't see anything wrong with it and all previous issues seem to have been addressed. Thanks. Woody (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's certainly been my long term goal for the article. I'd love to see it featured, but probably won't be able to do much towards it in the immediate future, as I anticipate being both pretty busy and away from many of my sources. Would you think it needs much in the way of copyediting, etc or other work before it gets put up for review? Benea (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you haven't got much time I am happy to do any grunt work that needs doing. Having said that I have read it through a couple of times in the last few days I can't see anything missing. Whilst it is a bit long, I think that will be accepted given how much has been written about him. I can't see anything wrong with the prose either, though I admit I'm not the best judge of prose. Perhaps find a prose expert to offer their opinion? Regards, Woody (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Complaints about your handeling of a AFC.
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Taemyr (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Cordelia (1856)
Hi, Ben. Can you kindly sort out an error in the formatting of the above vessel. Can't seem to spot the error. Many thanks. Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Speedy (1782)
Hope you are still with us? There is still an image issue at this article's FAC. I made a suggestion that involves emailing the NMM. There are also some queries from Sarastro you might want to chase up. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Submarine working group
Dear editor: Would you like a chance to collaborate with other editors on a working group dedicated to submarines? Based on your contributions to submarine-related articles, we have determined that you probably have a interest in submarines. If you would like to join our working group, visit WP:ONAU. MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of ONAU at 07:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Still with us, I hope?
Dear Benea I'm hoping this is a long holiday, and that you'll be back soon. It won't be the same without you! Shem (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded! I have just come over here to see where Benea disappeared to. Brad (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)